Leaving aside its ongoing ‘discourse’ with Washington and London over the prorogation of the National Assembly and the limbo in which the country is being held (at least up to the time of the writing of this editorial) on the matter of a date for general elections, the ruling party has, all too often, been drawn into prickly exchanges with some resident heads of mission, notably those of the United States and the United Kingdom over issues like crime, law-enforcement deficiencies, drug-trafficking and local government elections. In most instances the government has shown signs of disapproval of those interventions, assuming a posture of sourness, sometimes, downright tastelessness in its responses, meting out unacceptable levels of impoliteness to the ‘offending’ envoys.
In recent months, former US Ambassador Brent Hardt and outgoing British High Commissioner Andrew Ayre have been accorded the coarsest of send-offs by the political administration. The diplomatically inappropriate tantrums directed at the two aforementioned envoys have been dished out by senior administration figures like Education Minister Priya Manickchand, Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee and Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon. The conduct of these government officials has not only been uncalled for but quixotic and in particular instances, downright disgraceful.
Having served as the PPP/C’s first Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr Rohee, particularly, ought to be aware that diplomacy is underpinned by clearly defined practices that dictate both the means and the manner of communication among states; so that diplomatic notes and the summoning by the host government of the envoys of ‘offending’ governments to the Foreign Office are part of standard practice, the whole idea being that differences can be discussed in an atmosphere of discreteness away from the public glare. These are the common elements of conventional diplomatic practice. Unfortunately, they appear to matter little to the political administration.
The other point that should be made at this juncture is that it is the responsibility of President Donald Ramotar to place restraints on what now appears to be a declaration of ‘open season’ on ‘offending’ diplomats by some ministers and the Cabinet Secretary. As has already been mentioned, discourses between government and foreign diplomatic representatives ought correctly to be handled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. More than that, one doubts that the administration here would take kindly to the application of reciprocity by the governments of the USA and the UK to the practice of conducting diplomacy in the full glare of the public and, moreover, in an atmosphere that its diplomats would doubtless find discomfiting.
Nor are informed observers in the least bit impressed by the propensity of the political administration – as exemplified in recent public remarks by Mr Rohee in response to concerns raised by High Commissioner Ayre about the prorogation of Parliament – to strike a self-righteous ‘outside intervention’ posture whenever a comment on an issue by a resident envoy does not meet with official approval. The principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of states cannot be equated with total and complete external indifference to events in a particular country, even in cases where those events might impact directly on that country’s relations with another state or group of states. The PPP/C would itself be acutely aware of that.
The prorogation of the National Assembly by President Ramotar may not be constitutionally impermissible, but it is a matter with which countries sharing diplomatic ties with Guyana and, more importantly, espousing similar democratic values, have every right to be concerned.
In this context, there is no justification for deeming the behaviour of the US and the UK to be exercises in ill-intentioned ‘meddling’ in Guyana’s internal affairs. Both governments, (the USA and the UK) through their respective heads of mission have been persistently and energetically voicing their concern over issues that impact on their bilateral relations with Guyana and they have been doing so in a manner that does not appear to be underpinned by mischief.
To return to Mr Rohee’s most recent comment about Guyana being an independent state and therefore the equal of any other under international law it should be stated that anyone with an iota of understanding of international relations would be aware of the fact while the notion of sovereign equality is enshrined in international law, in the real world Guyana is by no means (in terms of either levels of development and global clout) the equal of either the United States or the United Kingdom. In fact, it would have been difficult to envisage the realization of such economic and social progress as Guyana has made over the years but for the support (through both bilateral initiatives and the influencing of multilateral support for Guyana) of the US and the UK.
There is no doubt that socio-political occurrences here in Georgetown are increasingly coming under the microscope in both Washington and London. In this context there are increasing signs that the resident envoys of the two countries are under instructions to ensure that diplomatic engagements focus on particular issues, foremost amongst which is the condition of political uncertainty in which Guyana finds itself. All of the fuss and fulminations of the PPP/C administration over the persistence of the US and British envoys has to do with the fact that it finds the glare of international scrutiny decidedly unsettling.
